Profligate leftist prostitution partying from who knows where. || "It is now less and less necessary for the writer to invent the fictional content of his novel. The fiction is already there. The writer's task is to invent the reality." -- JG Ballard. || "You try running with your sagging breasts down the middle of the fucking street. People will throw a blanket over you. And grab you. And call the police. For fuck's sake." -- Germaine Greer.

I, on the other hand, have no authority whatsoever and am happy to admit that I can't wrap my head around the decision by David Cameron to push ahead with legislation for gay marriage. Seeing as we can safely dismiss the notion that our current crop of politicians do anything for the reason that it's the right to do, it's difficult to see how the Tories will get even the slightest credit for wanting equality. If it's a belated attempt to continue with the "detoxification" of the party, then it's surely came far too late to make a difference. Even if it does have an impact, are many really going to be swung towards supporting the party due to this one issue, ignoring or rationalising everything else?

This leads you to wonder whether it's an attempt by Cameron to ape Tony Blair's insistence on repeatedly riling his party. The difference surely is that Blair for the most part did it when he was well ahead in the polls or entering his valedictory period: Cameron by contrast is well behind, and needs to silence the muttering against him by those who continue to blame his entire strategy as leader for their failure to win the election. Much as their analysis is absurd, they're right to worry that this is just the kind of policy likely to antagonise their core support. We already have civil partnerships, which the vast majority welcomed so the thinking goes; why offend or outrage the religious sensibilities of quite so many people for so little likely gain?

The bill itself follows this bewildering pattern. Despite suggestions to the contrary, there will be no mechanism by which Church of England priests will be able to go against the orthodoxy and marry gay couples, while similarly civil partnerships will remain available only to same sex couples. At the same time, the bill will allow certain faith groups which are happy to marry gay couples to do so, thereby angering the coalition that wanted religions to be exempted entirely. Those that wanted individual dioceses within the CoE to decide for themselves what to do have also been left disappointed. Partially this is meant to remove any possibility of either the domestic courts or the ECHR ruling that the bill is discriminatory, but it also has the effect of further confusing the issue, leaving very few other than Stonewall happy.

If it's true that this is one of those policies Lord Ashcroft has decreed must go ahead for the Tories to appeal to the yoof, then his thinking seems severely flawed. The bill will clearly pass the Commons, but only due to Labour support; any credit Cameron might be able to claim will duly be tempered by the crowing from Ed Miliband that it was only thanks to his party that it went through at all, emphasising that the Tory backbenches remain the home of err, social conservatives. We therefore have to return to my hasty dismissal of the notion this could be an example of politicians doing the right thing at the right time, acting with the best of intentions and attempting to do so while taking all opinions into account. It couldn't be, could it?